Fujifilm GFX 50R Review

The Fujifilm GFX 50R is a 50 megapixel rangefinder-styled medium format mirrorless camera. It shares most of its components with the existing GFX 50S, including both its sensor and processor, but re-arranges them into a slightly smaller and less expensive package. And though the GFX 50R provides essentially the same image quality as its elder sibling, the handling and controls make for a very different shooting experience.

The Fujifilm GFX 50R is available now with a recommended selling price of $4500.

Alongside the announcement, Fujifilm also added a 40mm-equivalent 'pancake'-style 50mm F3.5 lens to its lineup. This lens hasn't arrived as of this writing, unfortunately, but should pair well with the (comparatively) compact 50R body.

Comments

A camera like this FuJi is certainly NOT made to be used merely as a hobbyist camera, even though it no doubt would be occasionally used that way. I've read many multiple reviews of it online, here and there. And the only negative ones were written by people who have no clue about its intended uses, as if they're going to use it for bird photography, or as a photojournalist style of camera. One thing I do know for damn sure is that Fuji professional grade cameras are built like a tank, and will last almost forever.

I only read about MF cameras and never held one in hand, leave along using it. So, very basic question...

It appears that the latest FF cameras are better suited for landscapes and they can be used at relatively wider apertures and a bit faster shutter speeds to get the same DOF. Bill Claff's PDR charts show Panasonic S1 cameras right up there with MF cameras. Z7 and A7R3 are not far behind.

MF can be ruled out for sports and wildlife due to AF and focal length considerations. May be, something like this rangefinder style body can be used for street photography with a small lens but that would be a stretch.

At the end, I can see good use for MF only in situations that require very good background separation and lot of light gathering (68% larger sensor). Does that narrow it down to portraits, fashion and studio photography?

Of course, one could always buy it and try using for anything, if they could afford it... nothing should stop them from enjoying their hobby :-)

Really can't see any difference between 50R and Z7 (FU Nikon, will not add the space between those characters). Now A7R's pixel shift looks interesting although in this comparison it's hard to say due to the crappy lens.

What's the point of this camera? I can think of 4 things:

1) using adapted MF lenses, however due to the crop factor from 645 or 6x9 you might as well just use FF2) If you really just shoot 4:3 or 1:13) As a second body once the 100 MPx model comes out...4) If you're really, really bothered by the possibility of seeing PDAF banding (but there's D850 for that).

In practical applucations, the 50R image quality will by far exceed anything from Canon and Nikon. Reasons are: Colours, lenses and overall per pixel quality. Of course, this will only be relevant when printing large high quality prints. This has always be the case with medium format. As most people don't print anymore, the reviewers conclusion is correct that other systems are probably the better choice for most consumers.Fuji has a very strange approach to releasing new bodies. It is rather typical for them to release a slightly altered body at an attractive price built around an outdated sensor. See their X system. Who cares about a 50R when a 100S has been announced?

We should not use strong words such as "by far". It's very simple: DoF is such that for any shot all in focus, the MF lens should be stopped down 1 stop over a FF lens, diffraction will rob some of the IQ potential of the MF sensor. Second, pixels are coded over 14bits for the MF sensor, and it is the same for the FF sensors but on top of that the FF sensor are BSI , gaining at least 30% more light sensitivity. The MF in practice will be a little better at the edges of the frame due to less sensitivity to lens MTF roll-off, but that's all. MF will be inferior in terms of AF, portability and price.

For a Fuji X user who is looking after more image quality, the Fuji GFX can be an option, it will be costly , but the step up in image quality from xtrans will be justified. However, for anyone coming from full frame high res. camera such as D810, D850, Z7 , A7RIII or S1R, the tiny step of image quality of the GFX is far far from being worth the cost of the upgrade.

Image quality wise, the good sensor and glass is there. But camera / design and usability is a bit of shame at this price point. Most full frame camera (except Sony) are better designed (and cheaper) than the GFX50S and GFX50R. That is a problem.

As a 50s owner and Canon user, I can tell you that you are dead wrong. The large viewfinder image alone beats anything from Canon. Plus AF precision and (customizable!) interface is much better. But it is a medium format camera: Slow AF, large, heavy, "epensive". It is not a cobsumer camera, so comparing it to the latest NikonCanonSonys is pointless. The more relevant competitors are Hasselblad, PhaseOne abd the like.

The large viewfinder of the GFX50 was unusable for me because I couldn't see the corner of the frame unless using the back LCD, so I returned the GFX. That's why I decided to stick with the view finder of my FF camera.

Images from mobile phone can deliver good 8x10 prints. 12"x18" is fairly small print for a camera, apsc won't show limits at that kind of enlargement. Doing 24"x36" is more revealing. Although, beyond a certain viewing distance, no one can tell the difference.

@Goodknight but is has a smaller sensor. If someone said they had $2000 and wanted M43 would you tell them to buy a smaller than m43 sensor? no.

The difference between each step is small, but the difference between this vs. a micro 43 system will be very very noticeable. Id say this is fuji's attempt at getting some of the smaller than apsc market who balk at full frame but....ok, really, are you going to start arguing that m43 market better than medium format now? No. That would be silly. There is a point when sensor size makes a difference that cannot be argued. And there is also a point when a medium format camera an do things that a m43 cannot do, and the process of photography is different. A m43 owner may not want to buy a full frame as they are really too similar in most instances, but buying this would clearly be a unique product and would be justified if you had the cash.

These medium format sensors are barely larger than FF. So image quality is barely better not even noticeable in many cases. Now is it better enough to overcome the vast gulf in lenses and cost and AF performance. Na

GoodKnight, I almost agree with you (except for image quality). I've tried a GFX50R (rental), and it left me with mixed feelings. Image quality is a bit superior to those 45Mp full frames, but... usability of GFX is questionable and at that price point there is no excuse for Fuji. I was disappointed by usability, it just a pain to use a GFX compared to any DSLR, maybe we can get used to it over time, but even when getting used to the camera , it's never going to be as comfortable as Canon/Nikon/Pentax full frame bodies. The 645z is big in comparison to Fuji GFX, but handling is a lot better.

Yep and there are shooting situations that the Fuji just can’t handle. So really you are very limited. And if Nikon enables high resolution mode since they do have IBIS. Shooting for product or even some landscapes will give you amazing detail in color and resolution.

Well, high resolution / multi-frame, will reduce noise more than it increases resolution if the lens isn't that sharp, super-resolution won't improve image quality that much in the corners (where lens sharpness falls and aberrations become more visible), and the multi-frame translates into some artifacts if there are moving parts in the image. For me, a Z7 (or equivalent) with a set of sharp primes will deliver similar single frame images , will cost less, easier to handle and be smaller to carry around. I'm waiting for Nikon to release their 20mm 1.8 and 85 1.8. When we know the kind of photographs we want to take, we know the focal length of the prime to be used. A number of professionals aren't using medium format, they simple use good primes. Since the sensor size of the GFX vs FF is only about 1.22x and 1.33, a good primes on FF will bridge the gap.

@Kevin, I would like to understand the advantage in the real world because of such a large sensor. The extra light gathering capability is more than negated by faster lenses for FF. So does, DoF. DR is the key advantage of MF but the GFX DR is very slightly higher than FF at ISO 100 (Sony A7R3 is 11.64, GFX 50S is 11.9, GFX 50R is 11.86) (and for the most ISO range). So, where is the key advantage coming from? I believe GFX is capable of producing a higher resolution camera (maybe higher by 67% in proportion of the sensor area?) which to me is significant and therefore GFX is the preferred camera for those who are indeed looking for such a high resolution camera. Advantages such as better Fuji color, ergonomics and lens quality does not come inherently due to MF nature of the sensor but due to Fuji as a camera manufacturer. So, I definitely see GFX's advantage in situations where you need higher resolution. But other than that, I will love to learn where the advantage of Fuji GFX is.

Not talking about Hasselblad H6D or Phase One here. GFX seems like a niche professional camera to me, while FF is not niche (though for many applications, APS-C is good enough). Now, if many companies come together to harness the advantage of larger MF sensor, MF will definitely trump FF. But currently it isn't so (pricing, lens size, variety in lenses) because the focus is not on MF. So, inherently, MF definitely is better than FF, but current offerings suggest GFX is for niche application.

@Kris2403 - I think you've answered your own question with your last sentence. "MF definitely is better than FF, but current offerings suggest GFX is for niche application." One just has to work with a files a bit and the answer becomes a bit less puzzling. Certainly, it's a niche, but it is a growing niche with differences that will become even more apparent with their 100MP release in June.

@Kevin, I think that, currently, GFX's sensor does not offer the improvements that one would expect a sensor of this size. This is perhaps because the sensor used is very old. I do think that the 100 MP one will be a much better sensor and won't be surprised that the dynamic range from that sensor will be significantly more than that from FF sensors currently available in the market. So, I will rather wait for the release of that camera to see its performance than jump on the GFX ship right away. FF is still better in terms of DoF and light gathering capabilities, considering the lenses that are currently available. I, however, would definitely love it if Sony, Nikon and Canon also start something in MF as I see a significant potential in MF if these guys come in (lenses will be smaller and lighter due to more RnD, more lenses, higher DR due to technological advancements that currently bring FF's DR closer to that of GFX, camera size will go down, camera and lenses will be cheaper).

The take up rate on the GFX has exceeded Fujifilm's expectations. So, there are a fair number of photographers that appreciate this current iteration. I do agree that the next model will punctuate the differences even further and (i believe) it will be a very important model (and probably successful) in this growing market niche that Fujifilm is carving out for itself.

"we can't really recommend using the camera in continuous autofocus, as the hunting can be very distracting."So, pretty much still lifes, pedestrians and landscapes for $10,000. And fuzzy video. I don't think so :^)

It's a medium format camera, what do you expect? This is no different then say a Mamiya 645 back in 1999. If you needed speed you bought a Nikon F4, if you wanted better image quality you bought something like the Mamiya 645.

"So pretty much still life, pedestrians and landscapes" Hmmm, you forgot urban landscape, architecture and portraits.

So essentially, its a good camera for taking photos of anything that is not birds or sports. Or, essentially, its good most everything. There is not a single person on the planet of any photography background who would do 15 minutes of research and think this is a camera for birds and sports.

Sports and birds are 90% of photography, that's why GFX50S/R is only usable in rare photographic cases! That's why the must have camera is a Sony A9 (90% of fine art photographs are taken running fast in a hurry LoL).

Fine art photographs taken in a “hurry” means nothing! Like, in a hurry means I stand and have 2 seconds to spare to take a shot. My camera will still focus on 2 seconds. That the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard. You need fast af because you are in a hurry. Wow

Fuji, you are making a huge mistake by not giving us a full-frame option. If you come out with a full-frame camera, I will seriously consider it. I really miss shooting with the S1/S2/S5 Pro (those skin tones!). I can only imagine what a Fujifilm version of a D850 would be like. Please give us something like that. By the way, if the X-T3 was full-frame, it might be almost good enough. I just bought an X-T3 and returned it after shooting with it for a week. It brought back all the reasons why I went to full-frame 7 years ago.

Yeah, that's what they say now. Nikon was like that too weren't they? I can't imagine medium format making them as much money. The masses are moving to full frame. I considered Fujifilm because of their skin tones. I've been shooting Nikon FF for the last 7 years. I'm enjoying my D850 right now. I'll just have to settle with Fujifilm color profiles for now.

What do you mean by that? You just said Panasonic went FF. Why can't Fujifilm? Canon and Nikon just decided that mirrorless is relevant. Maybe Fujifilm will change their mind. Nikon did. I'll always hope. Man that S5Pro was great in the day. I had 2 of them.

My main reason for returning the X-T3 was high-ISO noise in my candid photos. I just could not accept the increased amount of noise and loss of detail. The second reason is AF speed indoors. With my D810 or D850, I can grab it, point it, and shoot almost instantly. With the X-T3, it takes too long to acquire focus. I have to spend so much more time trying to get it to focus on what I want it to (usually people). The third reason is reduced background blur. Of course one can get a large aperture lens to improve it, but you can do the same with full frame. You should try out full frame to see if you like it.

Dan - Fuji was smart, they chose 2 formats that don't overlap (APS-C/medium format). Why would Fuji release a FF when there is very little image quality increase over APS-C? It is smart to jump up to the next sensor size.

I've read that argument before. You could say that, but they lost me as a customer, and I'm sure they've lost countless others because of this. Virtually no one looking at the X-T3 will consider this medium format camera because of its performance. I looked at it, and I'm not putting up with that at any price. If they came out with a 16-80mm F2.8, I might keep the X-T3 but with their current selection of lenses, I find none I can live with. Even Sony has at least a 16-70mm F4. I just bought a Nikon Z6, and I am loving it. I can shoot at ISO25,600 and get usable images. I can barely accept ISO12,800 images from the X-T3. When you go full frame, you typically get 1 more stop of background blur and 1 more stop of high-ISO performance. For many people, full frame is the next logical upgrade. Fujifilm is losing out on a huge audience. They aren't lying when they say that once you go full frame, there's no going back. I am happy enough with the Z6 that I think I will stay with Nikon for now.

Now with MF, there is: Fuji, Hasselblad, Leica, Pentax, Phase One. So that's just one fewer brand, and Hassy even has 2 systems much more distinguished compared to Canon/Nikon MILC/DSLR pairs. And if anything, Sigma FF will compete in this arena rather than in its own size.

I'd say MF is quite a bit more crowded honestly and even if Fuji is probably eating everyone else's lunch when it comes to market share (dunno how Pentax is doing), I doubt they are making as much from MF as they could've from FF.

"Thankfully, above ISO 1600, the GFX 50S applies no additional amplification,..."Not sure what is there to be thankful of?If amplified ISO 6400 blows high light too much, shoot in manual with ISO1600.If scene was not backlit and ISO 6400 is not blowing highlight, by not amplifying the signal, two stops of SQNR is being lost.X-T3 applies amplification to ISO25600; what should we do? Be unthankful?

Even if the "read noise" is not improved by the analog amplification, do you think 12bit ADC (effective bit depth when unamplified below the full scale input by two ISO stops) vs. 14bit ADC?According to SQNR calculation, each bit add 6dB of SQNR.If you have a link to why this higher SQNR does not matter, I would appreciate that. I am really puzzling over this.And if the data is being clipped, the exposure or ISO or both are too high. It should not have anything to do with whether ISO amplifies signal further or not.

Everything I've read and been told suggests that quantization noise isn't a problem until you get down to the last few bits. The magnitude of photon shot noise is greater than the sampling precision, so you're oversampling most of the tones of your image (this is how Nikon is able to lossily compress its Raws without any visible loss of data: the highlights are so monstrously oversampled that you can compress it down a lot without any meaningful loss).

I think your 6dB figure would only apply to a perfect signal, rather than one that's inherently noisy. The Sci/Tech forum will be able to discuss this in much more detail than I can and I'd be interested to see their responses.

The ISO standard is based on middle grey rendering, so it's always a stumbling block when trying to discuss ETTR (which is the implication of what you're saying), and what 'correct' exposure is. That's essentially a separate issue...

ie: if we assume F4 was needed for sufficient DoF and 1/250th was needed for movement-freezing purposes, then ISO 6400 may well be the 'correct' ISO in terms of giving a JPEG with middle grey in the correct place. This particular scene requires more highlight retention than the standard JPEG, so what's the correct response?

In a camera that adds more analog gain with each ISO step, you'd need to drop the ISO to reduce gain or reduce the exposure (which would increase photon shot noise). As an alternative, many cameras have a DR mode that reduces the gain/ISO relationship by one stop (or one/two stops in the case of Fujifilm), then has a tone curve to incorporate the additional highlights into the JPEG. In fact setting the Fujifilm to ISO 6400, DR400% would have achieved pretty much what our processed image does, out-of-camera.

I'll check the PS&T forum; however, let me point out that the shot noise of the light should not affect the SQNR; consider that you want to capture the light level exactly, including the shot noise variation: would 12 bit more accurate or 14 bit more accurate (less noise)?

My understanding is that it would: noise inherent in the system would reduce the value of capturing it with greater precision. There's not necessarily a benefit in using 8192 values to characterise the brightest stop of data, vs using 2048, if there's lot of variance in the signal you're trying to encode.

But this is not my area of expertise, so I'll defer to the Sci/Tech forum on this.

By the DPR comment section I come to the conclusion that photographers (assuming at least a fraction of you all take one or two photographs once in a while) are the only breed that have the ability to be offended by gear. Looks like a spec sheet can have the same effect as someone calling your mother bad names.

There exists a Human ability to process the opinions of others with the same part(s) of the brain that responds to physical threats. Currently referred to as being “triggered” because these hapless fools are victims of their own triggered amygdalae.Pitiful, or more precisely, pitiable.

@Dan- I can assure you that potters do not hammer on about kilns and clay they way photographers do with camera gear. No one gets mocked for owning a Skutt or a Paragon, for example. Nor do the painters I know sit around to furiously debate brushes and canvas. Audiophiles and car enthusiasts certainly do, but in the world of art, photographers are a class of petty all their own.

DarnGoodPhotos - There's the opportunity for a 2/3EV difference between full frame and 44 x 33mm medium format. There are some cameras (the D850 and Z7 specifically) that can close much of that gap by having a base ISO that's 2/3EV lower*.

It is a non-sequitur to extrapolate from this to say a gap nearly twice as large is also irrelevant, even before you get to the fact that there's no technology difference that might try to bridge the gap.

*Speaking strictly in camera terms. Differences in lens performance can still make a big difference.

Sure but you’ll have people who will say the GFX isn’t a worthwhile upgrade because it’s 1/2 to 2/3 stop improvement over full frame in one breath and the one stop improvement full frame gives you over APSC is totally worth it.

What a waste of time this camera is. It offers virtually no tangible advantages for IQ over a D850, Sony A7rIII, Z7 etc, all of which also have amazing glass available. But you do get "slowish" AF?LOL!Seems like I'd buy one for....ummmm.....uhhh...

Scared? Are you joking I can buy whatever I want when I want, so why would I be scared? The point is that the review (and common sense) proves out that the IQ is about the same as ANY modern FX camera. And let's be honest. Virtually ALL cameras deliver fantastic IQ these days, so only fanboys split those hairs. Ergonomics and AF ability generally stand at the top these days. Good AF isn't just for sports; that's silly. It's required for event shooting, wildlife, candids, runway...just about any subject outside of landscape will benefit from superior AF. And let's not be silly about lenses either. Canon, Nikon and Sony all have awesome glass, not to mention spectacular 3rd party support. There's just no practical reason to bother with this Fuji for most shooters. And if Fuji builds something I want, I won't be "scared" because I'll just buy it. ;-)

Mr Hollywood why don't you buy one (or two just in case) test it and back up your bold statements. And btw AF is for lazy photographers. If the camera does everything what is your role and skill after all?

Sorry I was a kid in the 80s and I was looking at my father's MF film camera having no clue about how it functioned. Nowadays even a little kid can see the little green box and push a button. I didn't want to sound offensive but you seem to have something against Fujifilm maybe a little envy about them going MF while Casonik still milking the FF market.

LOL...I've owned plenty of Fuji gear, but you're not being honest about this particular camera. As pointed out, it offers no advantage in IQ that is meaningful and everyone has great lenses in systems that are more advanced than this particular camera. Forget about brands and look at capability in a realistic way as it applies to professional usage. Advanced cameras tend to be pretty demanding, so I have no idea what you're talking about. I can show someone how to use AF quickly, but ISO, DOF, lighting, composition and many other aspects of the creative process remain the same and take years to even come close to mastering. This particular camera is inferior to a D850 or Sony A7rIII in too many respects.

@Mr Hollywood.I think that you are limiting your view to the GFX50R and it's weaknesses only. You need to see larger. This camera is a cheap way to get into the GFX system. It's not bad at all.

The next generation of GFX cameras that fuji will release soon will be 100MP and more. We will need to wait longer until FF hits the 100MP and I'm not sure if the current FF lenses can perform above 100MP (or even 80MP). But we know that GFX lenses can.

The next generation of GFX will have a better AF that will be "good enough" for most photographers.

Why would I want to get into a system that needs more time? Shouldn't I just be smart and enjoy the 20K worth of Nikon FX gear until the GFX stuff improves and actually gives me something significant to upgrade for?Again: Overall this camera offers zilch to a photographer who already owns a good FX setup. And a 90 MP version will only offer advantages for a select few. I don't mind spending money, but I need to get something tangible for it.

I'm not constrained by brands. The quality of the tool is all that matters. If Casio makes a better camera, I'll buy it. I shoot Nikon because overall it's the best tool for me. If a better one comes along, I'll buy it. Brand bias is kiddie stuff.

Nice. And now add some value to us prospective gfx buyers by lowering you prices by 2/3 and add 4k or 8k video. Chips and RAM are a commodity item and cheap in a world where FF sensors now mark the lowend.

Full frame is now the camera for the average photog. Smaller formats are for the average photog who has no money. Medium format is for the average photog who has the money and who don't mind carrying a tripod most of the time...

It#s a quite old sensor and too slow for higher-res video (even at 1080 you get silly amounts of rolling shutter, also when using the e-shutter). It will be interesting to see how the 100MP version does when it arrives (the signals still have a lot of chip to traverse).

Can't agree that a large format sensor which is designed for stills should do video as well. Any owner of a MF camera will certainly have a lens stabilised APS-C camera kicking around to do the video better than his or her main large format photo camera.

UncoyI criticize corporations that make several dozen different cams and none is done right. The cost of making a dozen cams doing the same thing is ridiculous. Perceptive choice is not my thing. Marketing departments waste huge amounts of money to make you buy inferior products. I prefer corps where the beancounter interfaces with engineers - excluding marketing. Tesla has 3 stellar products. BMP has 3 stellar products. Kinefinity has 1. Boeing AC has 4. Clearly, japanese makers have not understood that. Pass the savings of one product line on the consumer. Make this product great. A GFX 100 with 8k video and the comfort of an Android phone. There is literally no cam I want to buy nowadays. IQ is just fractionally better than 5 years ago when I got a D600 - which was a turd - and yep, nothing since. Depressing.

While I can agree that GFX for the moment doesn't offer much over a Canon 5DS R or a Nikon D850, I can't agree that 8K video has much to do with making a great stills camera. GFX should have included an even larger sensor – real medium format. It's not different enough from 35mm to justify the inconvenience and cost. GFX does handle similarly to Leica with somewhat better results so perhaps it will find its place in the world after all. I do enjoy shooting with FX cameras.

Really, all I want for Christmas, is a full frame X-T3 or X-H2. Of course it will never happen but it's a pity that Fuji are in two segments which don't pique my long term interest but not in the one where I wish to abide – full frame.

A full frame X-T3 would be the best hybrid camera on the market today bar none. Image quality would be almost the same as GFX.

Still or Vid. They are the same. Only marketing thinks otherwise because still is less demanding and older sensors are slightly cheaper than newer ones. Now they dont have the expertise of phone corps or vidcam mfgs. Wary of buying anything right now because its old crap. One of the reasons why their market share has shrunk to 30%. Their doing.

Why would anyone want a FF camera crippled with Fuji's xTrans nonsense? Masochism? And what's so great about its anti-ergonomic retro/hipster knob-fest design? Can you imagine how much would Fuji FF lenses cost, compared to their current overpriced XF line?

Since the GFX ecosystem is already less expensive than the Leica SL and the FX line premium cameras trade around $1500, I'd be very surprised if Fuji 35mm would be much over $2000. Lens prices would probably be very similar to APS-C FX (which is already more expensive than CanNikon).

Basically for the end user there would be no premium for Fuji full frame. Fuji just gambled on an APS-C/miniMF strategy – I'm sure it seemed a good idea at the time. With the X-T3 the best hybrid camera on the market apart it doesn't look so good now. The only thing holding back the X-T3 from dominating the pro/prosumer/premium market like the Canon 5D and 5D III did is the APS-C sensor.

"...only 70% larger..."!?!?!? That was a joke, right? As the hotrodders say "Ain't no substitute for cubic inches." Others say "Sizes matters." I say "Someone should go to arithmetic school and learn their fractions and percentages."

My rule of thumb has always been: Double the size (and quadruple the area) for an actually noticeable (not dramatic, just noticeable) improvement in IQ. Any less than that, and the difference will only be discernible through pixel-peeping or close side-by-side comparisons.

67% larger in area. Key factors of IQ are: Lens quality and Sensor size and sensor generation. Take a XIX century lens on full format and measure the resolution and an APS-C state of the art newest generation, and the latter is going to be way better. So in contemporary standards, MF (Fuji) will be marginally better than FF (hardly noticeable) which is a bit more than marginally better than crop (slightly noticeable). So, if you're using an iMacPro (5K), the newest FF will be about as good as a MF, and the crop will be slightly lagging behind the two. Not significantly though. But not everybody's got a last generation iMacPro, so for 90% of the people the three formats will be about the same quality.

Got a 4k/32 proof screen with decent HDR capabilities.The quality difference between FF and MF is day and night. Flat grainy pics with keyhole sharpness or depth and luminosity, wide and sharp to the edge of your vision. I absolutely prefer the latter.

Which one? Just don't tell me Canon EOS R (5DMk4) against PhaseOne... What sort of processing? Nikon and Canon are day and night because of Canon's old sensor design (shadow noise, low DR, limited resolution). But Fuji against the Nikon Z (especially D850) those are quite close because they use a Sony sensor. Download the dpreview samples of the two and view them full size.

No one noticed that the Z7 and A7III images were shot at f5.6 and the GFX50S + R images were shot at f8, the diffraction component at f8 start to kick in, making it look like the full frame is as good as the GFX. Is this comparison valid? Yes and No, it depends if the f settings is in diffraction limited territory or not.

#808_freedive, come on Freedive, we both know that those aren't relevant samples ;) Many of those were taken using a FF though. So, it's the processing not the camera! FF and MF are not world's apart, they're almost equal/indistinguishable.

MThen I suggest you upgrade from your 6bit/11' Apple screen to what I have. You dont seem to see half of the image - and thats is what most commentators here on the site do...Halfblind describing a rainbow...

I shoot FF. Nothing wrong with it. HDR is intrinsic on my phone and more work on my FF. What processing are you talking? Its computational photography. TIts for tats.

As Felts mentioned below, for the test shot comparison between the Z7 and 50R, I ran the RAWs through nx-d and capture one (for the 50R). No sharpening and no noise reduction. I reposted because I could not edit the previous post with broken links.

For the Z7, banding in the shadows at +5ev. Cannot clean this up easily. By the way, I admit this is extreme, but DPReview declares the 50R not ISO invariant at +6ev, so by that criteria the Z7 falls a bit short here.

Just out of curiosity, I took the GFX 50R raw and ran it through Capture One at various exposures and then ran that through an HDR program Photomatrix Pro. I then resized the picture to 30x40 to see what a final (but quick) result would look like. If I were to actually print this, I may have tweaked more things here or there, but not that thrilled with the picture to play with it anymore.

So this is one interpretation of what an HDR result of the 50R. I think I would prefer to work with this for HDR shots personally.

Interesting, thank you! The 50R is quite a beast despite its nominally compact credentials, but to someone who used to shoot 6x9 film on a not-really-so-old Fuji rangefinder, it presses some nostalgia buttons. Something like the customizable, modular concept camera recently shown would be a great addition to the line, I think.

So, for the 50r, I ran them through Capture One, made multiple exposures, ran them through HDR Photomatix, resized result to 30x40. For the Z7, ran through NX-D, and then did the same. Then I looked at both results using a XNView to simulate looking at a printed picture somewhat close.

Result? While the Z7 lens is definitely sharper than what was used in the 50R, there definitely is faint banding in the shadows in the Z7 in a "real world" HDR shot. Doesn't jump out at you, but it's enough to be annoying for an HDR shot.

In my opinion, using the DPReview raws, I would personally go with the 50r. See for yourself.

I swear, you people seem to be native English speakers but your reading comprehension is appalling.

This specific MF sensor *is* better than full frame ones but there's not *that much* of a difference as it's just a 2/3 gap (which is very close to the difference between m43 and aps-c) rather than the sizable 4/3 between FF and aps-c (not even to mention the difference between FF and m43).

This specific sensor is old, the megapixel count isn't that high at all and it's not very indicative of what this MF format can produce, so there's a difference between it and FF but, especially with a FF that has a base ISO of 64, it's not that huge a difference. The next sensor Fuji'll use (100MP BSI with on-sensor PDAF) should demonstrate that difference compared to FF much more effectively.

Is that clear enough? What do you care about MF I don't even know, why are m43 people always hung-up about sensor size I don't really know.

I am not sure who you were addressing with your comments but I don't really appreciate your condescending and sarcastic tone.

You seem to be suggesting that people who use one camera format (i.e. "m43 people") should not care or be interested in another camera format. As if to say that their current camera equipment somehow locks them into that format and defines them as people. A very strange and dogmatic outlook on life.

Pete, you may be thinking of the "photographers" here who bought " FF" cameras and loudly proclaimed that smaller sensors were inadequate. But all of a sudden, they have a hundred reasons why no one needs a larger sensor, that the price is outrageous, that it is pretentious, etc., etc.

Full frame pretty much meets imaging requirements and offers a huge historic pool of lenses and great bodies. Real medium format would justify the excursion into an alternative format. Not this.

There's no hypocrisy here. M43 is just not big enough for low light/high ISO photography (I know, I've tried). APS-C can scrape by with a significant sacrifice of image quality at ISO 3200 and beyond. Plus one has to buy all new glass to handle those 26 MP APS-C pixel density (it's the equivalent of 50 MB full frame).

24 MP full frame or 16 MP APS-C are the two sweet spots in terms of lens requirements and visual quality. APS-C and M43 body and lens size just keep seem to be growing to the point there isn't much space/size advantage against small full frame (Sony A7 III, Nikon Z6, Canon 6D II, EOS RP).

Out of curiosity, I just downloaded the DPR RAW files of the Century Field image... just to see if the Z7 really can keep up. I processed as I usually do and lifted the exposure by one stop, again as I usually do.

The banding in the shadows of the Z7 file render it *unusable* for me, there is no such banding in the GFX file.

Case closed.

Try it for yourself if you don't believe me - just look at the trees in the foreground ;)

With the parent post and DPReview's challenge of "look at the raws" yourself, I want to see myself. Keep in mind that the following screen captures are about +5ev (appx for Capture One) which is LESS than DPReview's +6ev criteria of declaring the 50r is not ISO invariant. So the boosting of the shadows which I did was not as extreme as what DPReview does to evaluate ISO in-variance.

In a nutshell, Z7 shadow banding is like looking through a window shade, 50r is clean. This is why PDAF pixels on a sensor take away from a STILL image quality and is why I would choose the 50r.

Thanks for posting those John. Thats pushing the files more than I did... but I lift the shadows and pull back highlights as part of my standard processing. Z7 banding is *awful* when I lifted the exposure by just one stop!!

> Honestly, they both look like crap and unusable that way.I don't care which one is a bit less of a crap.

FYI I lowered sharpening as far down as I can go on both pics. Doing some sharpening on both pics made the shadow details a bit better, but it also emphasized the banding on the Z7 even more. The 50r shadows sharpen up nicely.

First, you compare an image from the Z7 using half pixels for autofocus and compare it to image from the contrast detect system of the 50r where the noise profile of pixels isn't affected by AF pixels. You could compare the 50R images to D850 images and the banding would be gone. Secondly, you ignore the fact that in practice, the D850 allow 1 stop faster aperture (1 stop lower ISO or shutter speed) thanks to larger DoF on the D850. Moreover the D850 has optically stabilized lenses available which again provide a few stop advantage to the D850 , and the 50r doesn't have that advantage because GFX lenses aren't stabilized. So, in real life shooting conditions (landscape), the difference between the 50r and D850 will be negligeable and often the D850 more convenient because D850 has better autofocus and also dual gain BSI sensor, while on the other hand the GFX sensor is older FSI tech.

I'm just doing what DPReview suggests to compare the Z7 raw to the 50r raw. It would have been nice if they had shot with other cameras such as the 850 or A7rIII to see what the results would have been.

I redid the screen shots where I turned off all noise reduction to see what the results were. It seems the default NR on Capture One was a bit heavy handed.

Result? Z7 banding is more pronounced. 50r looks pretty clean at +5ev. Maybe the Z7 lens is a bit sharper at the edges? Don't know. If I were doing an HDR shot, I would choose the 50r based on this.

You cannot quantify image quality by looking at a noisy mess. But you can do that by purifying the information the image contains. Because quality = information. When you enlarge an image or its crop past 100%, it looks uglier than it actually is, because by doing so you don't add any information to it. The image becomes larger, but it contains the same amount of information as the original or even less, because some of it might have been destroyed in the process.IMHO, the only proper way of comparison is to process images the best you can and see which one turns out to have more information/quality.

The 50R does contain more information, no doubt. But, not twice as much, like its price suggests, not even 50% more. Not more enough to live with all of its limitations and cost. At least not for most people. It doesn't mean that its sensor isn't superior. It is. It's just not worth the extra cost, plus the cost of very expensive and limited lenses, which makes it more of a luxury product, than a tool. And it won't even let you enjoy the real Medium Format experience, because it's not a real MF camera. It's just a little better than FF. That's all.

ecka84, if you want a finished result to evaluate of the 50R raw, here's a (rather quickly done) HDR result of the DPReview scene using the 50R raw, processed in Capture One, taken multiple exposures through Photomatix, and then resized to 30x40.

The rotated and rescaled version will have been dropped on top of the Fujifilm image to help maximise the alignment and scaling. Saving from Photoshop will preserve the metadata of the background image.

Let me then correct this score: when adjusted for a deliberate bias in reviewing, and if following long established policy of the DPR (which they broke in this case) that scores are relative to the advancement in the *category of the reviewed camera*, then among its peers (MF mirrorless digital) this camera deserves –GOLD–.As of this moment, this is the fastest, most comprehensive, user-friendly, bug-free, most polished up MF mirrorless digital camera made and released by any manufacturer.

See this is precisely one of the reasons why I hate all this video integration with still photo cameras. You can have the perfect still camera taking wonderful still images, but if it's video is not up to the latest spec rush, then we get reviews of "oh it's just an OK camera". Thus the overall rating is skewed and many will skip over the camera because of the biased rating.

The review itself says it's a GREAT _STILL_ image camera. I don't care if it takes videos, never use the feature, never will. Can't we have an overall rating for stills and an overall rating for video???

GFX50 deliver 50Mp, S1R, Z7, 5DSr also deliver about 50Mpixels at a much cheaper price. We start seeing GFX50 for sales used, at discounted prices. Given the evolution of full frame sensor resolutions and auto-focus, the GFX50 is going to rapidly lose its edge. The new standard is soon going to be 100Mpixels for medium format crop and 50Mpixels very common for full frame. After the GFX100 will be released by Fuji, we will see an increase of GFX50 for sale at discounted prices, it's just a matter of a year or so.

Where is this camera now? It compete with the S1R and Z7 that will deliver image with a little less dynamic range and lot faster autofocus, but autofocus speed isn't a big issue, the bigger issue is autofocus after sunset where the GFX will end up being focused manually while the S1R and Z7 will autofocus effortlessly. The GFX is an old camera released two years ago. The same sensor was used in other camera long ago , those older medium format camera have better af capability than the GFX50, and Fuji know it... they are working on it for the GFX100. Currently, for shooting models at fashion shows it is impossible to get any decent focused frames on walking models due to thinner DoF from the larger sensor and slow AF of the GFX50. The best way to know is to try it.

Not everybody needs 100Mpixels. It's a very specialized tool for a niche market.

The problem is that this 50 mp sensor is a bit outdated and Sony sees no need for an updated 50-70 mp 33x44 mm sensor at reasonable price point. It would create too much competition for their own 24x36mm camera division. I doubt their semiconductor division is completely independent.

I'm an owner of this camera (with the simply sublime 45mm) and the Pentax K1 (with pixel shift).

Compared with the K1, of course there is a resolution advantage, but the files the 50R produces deliver so much more than that. Tonality to dribble at, **file latitude +++**, DR, and the spacial separation at any given f stop that one should expect with a larger sensor. Images just seem more real, like you can step into them.

I was prepared to be disappointed when I looked at the first photographs on my iMac but my jaw was on the floor. It still is. For the first time ever, I'm consistently seeing images that reflect what I saw in the scene when pressing the shutter.

I couldn't care less what DPR think of this camera (not for sports?! LOL), but I also want to give my real world experience of the camera. Believe who you want, but I'm over the moon with it :)

Classic reply? Whats classic is somebody who just dropped near 5k on a camera not wanting to see that they wasted a lot of money. So they see what they want to see. Fuji has a tweener here and with ASPC, and it's a mistake.

@mferencz Ahhhh, and see, your judgement of others is where your argument fails. If you had merely said that you believe the camera is a market mistake by Fuji, fair enough, but you just *had* to make it personal by saying that @felts wasted their money.

nonuniform, you actually took the 45 seconds to come up that well thought out comment. You made a mistake. It's called SUCCESSFUL trolling. Or, it could be pointing out desperate justification. Wait, I've been typing for 45 seconds. Congrats. You got me now.

Felts, it's not just the sensor, it's the MF lenses. You can't beat good MF lenses, as the lenses deliver incredible information to the sensor. As for the test, find some good Pentax 67 lens and mount it on a modern crop DSLR via the adapter, and the results will blow your socks off.

@mferencz So you think Felts is trying to justify his GFX purchase? What about me? Bought GFX last April, bought A7r III last September. As amazing as the A7r III is, GFX outperforms A7r III easily, even in pixel shift mode. And I agree with everything Felts is saying. Do you see me justifying my newest toy? A7r III is very good for where performance is needed, but for the ultimate IQ, GFX still has no match.

@TETNO... it's not my job to review cameras (judging by the misery on here, a thankless task) but I think the only way to do this is to play with the RAW files yourself on a decent monitor. I like to tinker a little with my images, pushing by up to two stops (but usually less) and flattening the image by pulling back highlights/lifting shadows. It's not what everyone would do, but *for me* the GFX files are far far more malleable than my FF output.

Absolutely correct. That's something people who haven't used these cameras don't get to come to realize. There's a lot more to these MF cameras than just ultimate image quality. Utility plays a large role for many photographers and being able to beat-up a file in post beyond what can be done with a Canon, Nikon or Sony FF file can make all the difference in the world to someone looking to get paid.

@Teila Day I agree with you completely. GFX, X1D, 645Z all the cameras with this sensor produces amazing files. Ultimate quality comes from these files. Even the D850 or A7r III files are not on the same level as my GFX. People who never used this camera will never know.

I think it would have been way smarter to 'redo' the 50MP sensor design give it phase detect AF and better DR due to an improved design like BSI instead of coming up with an 8500 dollar 100MP camera next.

This camera is just 'milking' and fooling customers.Yes its much underwhelming compared to Sony and Nikon offerings.

@Duncan M This is a 2013 sensor made by Sony, not even designed for mirrorless, but Fuji and Hasselblad tweaked it to work on mirrorless cameras. This sensor was used first in Pentax 645z. So it is what it is. After this, the next gen sensor is the one that is coming on the next Fuji model: GFX 100S. So considering a 5-6 year old sensor, this still keeps up well.

I think Fujifilm is in for deep sh!t.APS-C is on the return when looking by what is being released these days and your GFX is way too bulky to ever become mainstream.

Good luck with your 8500 dollar 100MP FF+ camera. That will have the pixel density of a APS-C sized sensor... It is not going to be that DR wonder you think it will be. The G-Sensor is not even close to being a true MF sensor.

Yes we have a different approach to this market.But at least we can agree to disagree.

The expertise in being able to pick out the differences between the RAW files on this website probably is quite vast. A difference may be significant to one person and insignificant to another. Plus, we all, including the DP Review staff, have biases that influence what we think about the differences. Then, there is the cost to realize the differences.

Plus there is your target audience and how you present your photography to that audience. Will your audience see the different gradations in tone color in the sunset or the difference in readability on signs? Do they care?

Finally, we have to realize that there always will be cameras that will do something better than the camera we own. Does that mean we are stupid for owning our camera, challenge our manhood, mean the other camera is better for us, or mean our photography skills are less? Of course not! How many of us spend more time reading and commenting on gear than actual photography? Just go out and photograph!

For making samples of such high end pro camera it would be better to hire pro landscape or studio photographer. No offence but bringing this camera out and do random average shots don't justify this camera. It can do much more than that. From samples posted one could assume that even super cheappo Canon / Fuji entry level camera can handle the same <3.

I think that people here are missing the fact that the 35mm sensors are so impressive because of the money being put into their development. When Fujifilms 100MP sensor comes out with its improvements over the current 50MP sensor, we should be able to see what the larger sensor can provide.

No 4k no flippy screen crippled AF is a deal breaker ;(As DP has said IQ compared to FF is minimal. I think that FF Sony Nikon, Canon etc are so good now days that crop medium format niche is shrinking. If priced is reduced to FF price would make it more appealing.

It's like asking why a mid size truck doesn't have a convertible roof. Or why are houses so expensive in San Francisco. Why would you put a flip screen on a large camera like this? You would really do a handheld selfie? Why not get a tripod and a remote, like all ILC cameras? These cameras aren't for video. You could easily get an XT30 w/ 18-55 kit for video, and have this for the specific advantages of Medium Format.

I see people are complaining about this system not having fast enough lenses. When I look through photo books by Joel Meyerowitz, Stephen Shore, Joel Sternfeld, Adam Bartos, Jan Staller, William Eggleston, Nan Goldin etc NOT ONE image uses a thin depth of field. NOT ONE image has fancy blurry bokeh. NOT ONE image could be improved if only they had a f1. 2 lens to get nice creamy bokeh from their bokeh beast.

Blurry background became a fad with commercials. Advertising industry used it to isolate products and people smiling while holding products. It was also used in sports photography when editors presumed audience knows the background of a stadium. But documentary and people photographers tried to capture the relevance of a moment and proper context of a subject, which must include the background. Often is background more revealing about the subject's thoughts and life than the subject alone.

It's a cinematic look. An artistic tool which has existed a little while before social media, or even digital cameras or monitors. And, when used well, captivating, transcendent. It's also in contrast to the most common type of photo today: the mobile phone photo.

You don't need a $5000 camera to get background defocus. A $100 used Nikon DX can give you some sort of beautiful background blur. This camera does it differently than that, or FF. It's a unique look that I enjoyed in the DPReview sample gallery for this camera. But, at a high price. Regardless, it's unique and awesome.

Before I knew about DOF, I always preferred images with a certain look, and guess what. I discovered later that it was due to low DOF. I don't know why one would call it a fad or neutral. Images with low DOF just look better to me. This is long before Instagram was ever a thing.

How Harley Road-King goes against superbikes in Superbike racing? They are both bikes, right? Big, fat Road King can enter the race there against Airwaves Ducatis too? I mean, it has 600cc motor or larger, two wheels, steering column, brakes, seat ...? Well, no! Unlike camera reviews, bike racing sport is regulated, and logical.

There is a multitude of 'motorcycle racing categories'. Superbike racing is one of the categories.The regulations for the multitude of 'motorcycle racing sport categories' also vary, and can also be altered.

It is a possibility that a Harley Road-King and an Airwaves Ducati are entered into the same race. And it also possible that neither the Harley Road-King nor the Airwaves Ducati make it to the finish line.

For sure the Fujifilm GFX 50R can be considered 'great' for certain forms of landscape photography. Yet when the landscape to be photographed/videoed involves an erupting volcano, my personal choice would be Micro Four Thirds system with a long-focus lens.

This 'review' is hilarious. I have never read on DPR such an intentionally skewed "review article" as this one. How difficult is to gather that a true specialist, if he or she has any credentials, would never compare cameras across different classes, and never test equipment not specifically designed for a certain purpose against that purpose?

If a camera costing half as much money can do most/nearly all of what the camera you're reviewing can do (plus a whole lot else), how would it be reasonable to conclude: 'I'll judge it only by its marketer's intent and pretend it's magically distinct.'

Richard, I need to build a house and haul some cement bags and bricks, sometimes to drop in two workers. I can buy a decent Mazda CX7 SUV for the price of a used 5-tonne truck. Surely CX7 can haul some bricks? .. Decisions, decisions...

RX100 can do all too. Good photo, good video. It is fast too. So why are people buying FF and lenses and what not? Compare it with other medium format cameras. Are you going to review EOS RP with some APS-C bodies because they might have close price ranges? Maybe with D500? Might as well. Or maybe with a pocket camera that has better video? Or compare it with P1000 because prices are close? No the other cameras will probably be z6, eos r or a73 etc. Then why comparing gfx with FF bodies? One of the most affordable medium format mirrorless camera with the fastest autofocus in its class gets compared with a bunch of FF bodies which are not for the same tasks.

Except, Zvonimir, for your metaphor to be accurate, it would be two vehicles that are essentially just as good at carrying bricks. So the reason for buying the slower vehicle is less clear-cut than it initially sounds.

Richard, I have used that example because I have seen it hapenning. People wanted to carry their bricks in style for their fancy new home, and opted not for truck that is slower but delivers more and more safely, but for stylish passenger vehicle, Mercedes E class I think, with seats covered with a thick blanket. That is what your ccomparison with FF cameras, "comparison" between two different categories, reminded me of.

Back in film days I had a Pentax 645 and later a Bronica RF645. I never approached either of those systems the way I did my 35mm kits. I was always more deliberate in shooting, and never thought to take MF to a fast action shoot.

It doesn't bode well for the future of full frame if an outdated, 5-year-old medium format sensor can match or exceed the latest and greatest full frame sensor so easily. Full frame is a sinking ship, time to get out while you can.

Hi dpreview. I'm not going to defend 50R but if think Your review is somehow flawed in it's comparison to FF. Why? Because to really compare it to FF you should've approach it from different angle, and leave Your comfort zone of how You test all the gear. I'll try to explain more.

First of all - You should think of areas where medium format is described as superior to FF. For me that would be probably 3 elements - 1. DYNAMIC RANGE, 2. TONALITY COLOR & ABILITY TO MANIPULATE IT, and for some "this" 3. FIELD OF VIEW LOOK [ there is this cool term to describe it but I just forgot it ]. Probably some of You view it differently, what's more important for me it just methodology i want do explain.

Then - when You got the areas selected You should prepare test scenarios where FF camera FAILS. So for example - select a scene with very, very high DYNAMIC RANGE, range that is far beyond FF scale. And then compare it do 50R or any other MF. [ will be continued ].

Same sholud be done for other areas - You sould find some kind of test that would test tonality in maybe some difficult situations with very gradual tonality change of diferent colors, tested maybe with base and then 6400 ISO and then pushing these photos with some RAW transformations.

I'm a FF shooter yet I think your test is unfair for MF. Your selected comparison looks already great on D850/810, wonderful cameras on it's own. Yet you should push these cameras above limits, and find tests not yet done on dpreview.

And don't get me wrong, I a very long time dpreview reader, and I see all this marvelous work you put into this service. But in this specific case for me You forgot to understand what MF is great at - and that's not megapixels I think.

I was honestly waiting for Your 50R test, as I'm right now trying to find my next camera [ D850 vs 50R ]. After the review, being a Nikon shooter I should be happy and go with Nikon. Yet i think you missed the opportunity to challenge 50R, find it's excel areas, and find the real value in MF [ of course if it's there somewhere ;) ].

For me the advantage of MF is in print. As soon as I open a photo book I can tell if it is Medium/large format or 35mm. The fine detail is noticeable in print. DPR should have a section on prints from the various comparators and the Fuji.

TETNO - the sunset city image is a very wide dynamic range scene and both the GFX and Z7 are showing similar amounts of noise in the shadow areas, which confirms the independent findings of DxO and Bill Claff that this sensor does not offer a significant dynamic range advantage over the Z7 and D850.

And since the Z7/D850 can usually tolerate very, very similar amounts of light per pixel as the GFX, and both record in the same precision (not that that makes much difference), it's difficult to find any rational source for the claimed 'tonality' differences, let alone a way to demonstrate it.

The problem is that "Pro's use MF so it must be great" (with no distinction being made between 44x33 and 54x40 - which absolutely will offer an advantage over FF) isn't something that can be tested, proven or even, apparently, questioned.

RICHARD - first of all - thx for Your comment - I really appreciate it.

Yet I can't agree :(. Sunset city scape. I agree, it's wide, but just not wide enought. It's dynamic range great to demonstrate that FF has wide dynamic range. And that's it :(. In real shooting during bright day You could find very contrasty frames to test. From my perspective sunset flattens the range. It's nice to show shadows tonal space and ISO but it's not good to show dynamic scale. I of course might be wrong but I think You didn't understand my post - I'm not going to defend MF, I'm just saying that You should shoot a photo FF is struggling with.

Second and third areas I proposed I problably hadred to come by yet I think this could be approached from diffrent angle. In this post there are several photogs saying they have both FF and MF and MF is king. Maybe they sholud propose how to check tonality and "look" ;).

Sorry for all this blah blah :), after all You have some great www with great community :).

Which to choose comes down to a few features: - do you need fast af? ability to capture 10+ images in a split second? - do you need the highest number of megapixels for high-dpi or very large dimension output? - do you like to have bragging rights with the latest gadget?

I'd guess for most people, given the level of conversation here, #3 is the most important feature of any camera.

It depends on the simple issue: to what class belong the individuals conversing. Yes, I do believe that human beings belong to very different classes and cultures, while both categories ate open. For me, the best example of the differences of it is represented by three different ethnicities which I equally admire: Eskimos, Finns, and Jews.

I am done with medium format after many years using Leaf Aptus 75S, IQ140, and IQ180. Now shooting with the Nikon D850 which surpasses all of these in every respect except the resolution of the IQ180. However I can still make an acceptable;e 36x48 print with 45 megapixels. Not to mention the ease of shooting the D850, low cost of Nikkor G lenses, high DR, long exposure capability and on

I have not comment many bulletin here on dpreview.com. Many times I have shake my head, whiteout responds to write.

It looks that many of the user here on this site, is very professionals Photographer. I don’t think is the true. Why is my option such?

Always there so many, that have negative comment, about new camera or old. The same is going on whit lenses. Of cause it’s all right whit negative comments, but I feel it’s to mush. Why not, just like to take, Photos and enjoy them.

Remember, there are software, there can fix nearly any error, that will occur on your Photos.

Well, you should also try taking more photos of brickwalls, sunsets, and maybe some family snapshots to really see IQ of that Nikon. The Fuji will blow you away when you see how it resolves a brickwall. Also, don't forget that all cameras work better when shooting beautiful young models.

Compare it with my Mamiya RZ67...what do you consider ugly and relatively big? Pick up that camera with a standard lens and you will change your mind. Also the X!D is already discontinued because it was a failure, what does that tell you.

I consider my Mamiya beautiful and there's nothing of this camera that would be reminding that "medium format" feel. It actually feel very plastic, like toy (again hence it's lightweight which is great).

I love Fuji and they are making amazing product with insanely beautiful design (100F, T3), but this is not one of them

For those wondering about detail differences between 50MP MF and hi-res Nikon or Canon: Go the Fred Miranda site, check the pictures by Sculptormic at Medium Format Digital Images Thread to compare them any FF you know..

Also, this is DPReview, where confirmation bias and justification rules. I am astonished how many of the "photographers" here spend hours trying to prove that the Fuji model xyz is no better than their xyz or is obscenely priced or the other drivel they spout. Why bother? They are not the customer. There are plenty of other products for them.

OK I read it. DPR keeps repeating (over and over) that there is no real IQ advantage over their beloved FF cameras that they promote so shamelessly. Yet, I have had so many GFX shooters tell me that the GFX blows their Sony, Canon or Nikon FF high-res sensor out of the water and that it is not even close. What do they see that DPR fails to see? I see it too. I don't know why Richard can't. Maybe DPR sees what it wants to see. Maybe DPR does not like Fuji's APSC-MF business strategy, as if they are irritated that Fuji "fails" to produce a FF camera that they can praise. Oh, and thanks for at least mentioning the glass. That glass is a world-beater and DPR acts like it is no big deal. I do not agree with the review. It is wrong. It is misleading and heavily biased. They make these editorial comments that are bogus and disparaging. As always, they try to steer top-end photographers back to FF from an emerging MF niche that has a world of promise.

In fairness to the DPR team and others, currently the difference between "crop" DMF cameras and the best FF ones is not huge, and for the very very vast majority of users overall that difference winds up being a big "Huh?" Throw in pixel shift tech with FF and that distance narrows further in select instances.

Nevertheless in my work, the difference is definitely notable and all things considered well worth the jump from FF (which I still use) to DMF. There is no big argument here, and people gnashing their teeth about it are self indulgent imo. If you need this it really is a no-brainer. If you are wondering if you need it, you most likely don't.

OTOH, sadly DPR has a bit of a history here, and have done themselves few favors proving they have no biases.

Mac West, dismissing differences in opinion as hatred and stupidity is not the issue. The issue is this obvious difference in image quality. You should easily be able to provide quality images from both cameras demonstrating those clear differences. My suspicion is that subtle may be a better term, and that neither you or other viewers, just like the DPR folk, could consistently see the difference were it not for exif data.

You said, "What DPR does not even mention is the fact that you would need an F1.75 MF lens to let the sensor capture as much light as a Nikon FF with a F1.4 lens mounted, and such a lens does not exist."

@rbach44: No-one is obsessed with medium format and fast lenses. Medium format disciples are obsessed with justifying their choice, and one of these justifications is that the medium format sensor "catches more light", which is demonstrably false. The other myth, that there's a special "look" to medium format, has been refuted ten years ago already.

Don't sit on the fence, Fence Sitter. Just don't buy MF. Stay away from it. Ignore it. You will be fine with MFT, APSC or FF. Most people (99.9% of the human population) are just fine with phones that have sensors the size of a match-head. By the way … that MF "look" you are talking about? It has not been refuted my friend. Who told you that? Also, none of the MF guys I know care what anyone thinks and they are too old and set in their photography ways to worry about what random forum commenters think about moving from FF to MF. They don't care because they know what they have and what they see when they shoot. They might care what other MF guys think. They don't care what most of the people commenting here think. I do, but I'm a sensitive guy. 👴

I'll put this out here. From an intelligent professional shooter has actually shot just about every format and now uses medium format. It may not stand up to the logic of the forums, but I'm far more interested in a real pros opinion on such matter.

@mac west I too had D850 before GFX 50S. And I also bought a A7r III after GFX. And before someone talks about lens quality, I used D850 with six lenses but let me mention just two: 200mm F2 VRII and 105mm F1.4. Sony I use with 85mm F1.8. And GFX 50S with 110mm F2. The GFX files are very different than the FF files and specially when post processing I can see real differences. Dpreview won't probably ever see these differences, their "edited to taste" is limited. FF with the most expensive glasses will need to come further to come close to GFX.

@fencesitter I am a MF user and I don't need to justify my purchase. I took my friend with me who does not know anything about photography when I went to try GFX 50S. I took one image from my D850 with 105mm F1.4 and one with GFX and 120mm. Showed them to my friend and she was impressed at the quality of it. 40 mins we spend on the road on our way to the store and she tried very hard to deter me from buying the camera because I already spent a lot for D850. She is a good friend. And then one photo from GFX and she says: buy it. I took her photos many times and she loves that 105mm F1.4 because it makes the image looks magical and she never were that impressed. I dont even need to say how impressed I was.

@fencesitter there is no justification needed. If I wanted to justify my purchase, I wouldn't go and buy an A7r3 five months after I bought GFX. But I did. Because medium format has its uses and it is not a do-all camera. It is to get that quality and look and feel. For all other stuff I got the A7r3. No justification needed for spending a load of money for a camera that is not suitable for everything. Because I know it is not supposed to.

More about gear in this article

For the past few weeks, our readers have been voting on their favorite photographic gear released in the past year in a wide range of categories. Now that the first round of voting is over, it's time to pick the best overall product of 2018.

This year, plenty of amazing cameras, lenses, accessories and other products came through our doors. As 2018 winds down, we're highlighting some of our standout products of the year. Check out the winners of the 2018 DPReview Awards!

Much of the Fujifilm GFX 50R is very familiar, but its smaller size and redesigned controls serve to make the 50R handle very differently from its elder sibling. Here's a detailed look at what's different – and what isn't.

Fujifilm has announced its GFX 50R, a rangefinder-styled version of the company's GFX 50S medium-format camera. The 'guts' of the two cameras are the same, with the difference being the design, weight and Bluetooth, all at a considerably lower price.

Latest in-depth reviews

The Leica Q2 is an impressively capable fixed-lens, full-frame camera with a 47MP sensor and a sharp, stabilized 28mm F1.7 Summilux lens. It's styled like a traditional Leica M rangefinder and brings a host of updates to the hugely popular original Leica Q (Typ 116) that was launched in 2015.

The Edelkrone DollyONE is an app-controlled, motorized flat surface camera dolly. The FlexTILT Head 2 is a lightweight head that extends, tilts and pans. They aren't cheap, but when combined these two products provide easy camera mounting, re-positioning and movement either for video work or time lapse photography.

Are you searching for the best image quality in the smallest package? Well, the GR III has a modern 24MP APS-C sensor paired with an incredibly sharp lens and fits into a shirt pocket. But it's not without its caveats, so read our full review to get the low-down on Ricoh's powerful new compact.

The Olympus OM-D E-M1X is the ultimate sports, action and wildlife camera for professional Micro Four Thirds users. However, it can't quite match the level of AF reliability offered by its full frame competitors.

Latest buying guides

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

What’s the best camera costing over $2000? The best high-end camera costing more than $2000 should have plenty of resolution, exceptional build quality, good 4K video capture and top-notch autofocus for advanced and professional users. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing over $2000 and recommended the best.

What's the best camera for shooting sports and action? Fast continuous shooting, reliable autofocus and great battery life are just three of the most important factors. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for shooting sports and action, and recommended the best.

What’s the best camera for less than $1000? The best cameras for under $1000 should have good ergonomics and controls, great image quality and be capture high-quality video. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing under $1000 and recommended the best.

If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that while they're a bit older, still offer a lot of bang for the buck.

We've updated our waterproof camera buying guide with the latest round of rugged compacts, and we've crowned a new winner as the best pick in the category: the Olympus TG-6. That is, unless you happen to find a good deal on the TG-5.

Researchers with the Samsung AI Center in Moscow and the Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology have created a system that transforms still images into talking portraits with as little as a single image.

K&R Photographics, a camera store in Crescent Springs, Kentucky, was robbed by armed men, who not only took thousands of dollars worth of camera equipment, but also injured the 70-year-old co-owner of the store.

The new Fujifilm GFX 100 boasts some impressive specifications, including 100MP, in-body stabilization and 4K video. But what's it like to shoot with? Senior Editor Barnaby Britton found out on a recent trip to Florence, Italy.

It's here! The long-awaited next-generation Fujifilm GFX has been officially launched. Click through to learn more about the camera that Fujifilm is hoping will shake up the pro photography market - the GFX100.

We've known about the Fujifilm GFX 100 since last fall, but now it's official: this 102MP medium-format monster will be available at the end of June for $10,000. In addition to its incredible resolution, the camera also has in-body IS, a hybrid AF system, 4K video and a removable EVF.

According to DJI, any drone model weighing over 250 grams will have AirSense Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) receivers installed to help drone operators know when planes and helicopters are nearby.

Chris and Jordan are kicking off a new segment in which they make feature suggestions to manufacturers for the benefit of all photographer-kind. To start things off, they take a look at the humble USB-C port and everything it could be doing for us.

The Olympus TG-5 is one of our favorite waterproof cameras, and the company today introduced the TG-6, a relatively low-key update. New features include the addition of an anti-reflective coating on the sensor, a higher-res LCD, and more underwater and macro modes.

The Leica Q2 is an impressively capable fixed-lens, full-frame camera with a 47MP sensor and a sharp, stabilized 28mm F1.7 Summilux lens. It's styled like a traditional Leica M rangefinder and brings a host of updates to the hugely popular original Leica Q (Typ 116) that was launched in 2015.

We've been playing around with a prototype of the new Peak Design Travel Tripod and are impressed so far: it's incredibly compact, fast to deploy and stable enough for the heaviest bodies. However, the price may turn some away.